ShaunR

And that's another big reason why ECL won't be available in Linux. It was ok when it used the NI binaries but the switch to standard OpenSSL binaries means that the CLFN usually loads system wide binaries (even if you define a path) and there is no way for LabVIEW to use "RTLD_DEEPBIND".

The problem with test stand is it tries to be all things to all people. IMO, simplifying is best. I haven't used TS for quite a while but when I did, I offloaded all tests to LabVIEW and just used it basically as a script. I had a VI with command/response capabilities (via TCPIP) which meant that TS sequences were a list of operations and just sent strings to execute tests and take measurements. One nice side-effect of the TCPIP meant that you could also execute tests remotely so an operator didn't even have to be sitting next to the machine the tests were running on (quality engineers loved that they could run tests and calibrate from their desks instead of going out to the machine).

I had a girlfriend like that. It turned out that her father used mix metaphors for comic effect but she didn't realise and thought it was the correct metaphor. When she said "everyone says it like that" what she meant was "my family says it like that"

Not that so much but he might be right and I've been using an eggcorn for my entire life.

A malapropism is similar but more common for comedy because it doesn't need to make sense in context (so it's easier and funnier).

I love Rolf's eggcorns. I never point them out because he knows my language better than I do.

it was meant tongue in cheek and specifically chosen because you've done it a million times (probably). I wonder what the forum mark-up is for that?

Don't have that problem with dynamic typing. Typecasting is the "get out of jail" card for typed systems. This one seem familiar? linger Lngr={0,0}; setsockopt(Socket, SOL_SOCKET, SO_LINGER, (char *)&Lngr, sizeof(Lngr)); DWORD ReUseSocket=0; setsockopt(Socket, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, (char*)&ReUseSocket, sizeof(ReUseSocket));

Oddly specific. I would want a method of being able to coerce to a type for a specific line of code where I thought it necessary (for things like precision) but generally...bring it on. After all. In C/C++ most of the time we are casting to other types just to get the compiler to shut up. They broke PHP with class scoping. They are now proposing breaking it more with strict typing. Typescript is another. It's the latest fad.

Actually. your particular problem is that the variant type is only a half-arsed variant type. It's easy to get something into a variant, but convoluted and unwieldy to get them out again. I think "Generics" were supposed to resolve this but they never materialised. I shake my head with the recent push in the software industries to strict type everywhere. Most of the programming I do is to get around strict typing.

If only there were a way that one could use strings to define the event. We could call them, let me see, "Named Events"?.

There is a "best practices" document (this too) but I suspect you are looking for a less abstract set of guidelines.

We have the Start Asynchronous Call for creating callbacks in LabVIEW. There are a couple of issues with what you are proposing in that callbacks tend not to have the same inputs and outputs. What we definitely don't have, at all, is a way for implementing callbacks for use in external code (in DLL's). While what I'm proposing *may* suffice for your use case, it's the external code use case where LabVIEW is lacking (which is why it makes Rolf nervous ).

It's only software One isn't constrained by physics.